Read the decision here: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/
In a historic decision for equal marriage, today a federal court ruled Proposition 8 — California’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples — to be unconsitutional. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, declared that the amendment to the California Constitution adopted in November 2008, violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
The real heroes here are the plaintiff couples Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo & Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier. These two committed couples decided they would not be silent while Proposition 8 declared their relationships unworthy of a marriage license.
Please take a moment to thank them for all that they’ve done.
HRC President Joe Solmonese released the following statement:
“After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true – the Constitution’s protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. We thank the courageous plaintiff couples, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies for their tremendous efforts leading to today’s decision and their ongoing commitment as the case moves forward on appeal. The battle for marriage equality continues, and we must all continue our work – in courthouses and statehouses, in church pews and living rooms – until equality is reality for LGBT people and our families everywhere.”
In response to a 2008 decision by the California Supreme Court ending marriage discrimination in the state, anti-equality forces succeeded in placing a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. Despite over 18,000 same-sex couples having married, California voters adopted the amendment, known as Proposition 8. After the California Supreme Court determined in 2009 that the adoption of Prop 8 did not itself violate the California Constitution, two plaintiff couples — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – filed suit against the State of California in federal court, represented by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies and supported by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The proponents of Prop 8 intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the amendment. Judge Walker held a historic trial in January, in which the plaintiffs presented substantial testimony and evidence to show that Prop 8’s only purpose is to discriminate against same-sex couples. Both sides have previously indicated that they would appeal Judge Walker’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the case may ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judge Walker: Prop 8 Unconstitutional
Judge Vaughn Walker's remedy, or solution, to the case:
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
Here is the decision:
More to come ...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
California Log Cabin Republicans Responds to Prop 8 Case Decision
(Los Angeles, CA) – In response to the decision by US District Judge Vaughn Walker in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, California Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) issued the following response from LCR State Chairman Leonard M. Lanzi:
“Today, all Californians have had their rights strengthened through the court’s decision. As Republicans, we are heartened that plaintiff’s attorney Ted Olson and David Boies used core conservative principles of privacy, liberty and freedom to convince the court that Prop 8 should be overturned. While we anticipate this decision to appealed to the highest court in the land, Log Cabin Republicans will continue our work to change hearts and minds in all communities across the California.”
# # #
Log Cabin Republicans promotes legislation to provide basic fairness for gay and lesbian Americans and works to build a more inclusive GOP. The 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears
Washington (CNN) – A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that Proposition 8 - California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage - is unconstitutional.
Q: What happens next?
A: The losing side is hoping the judge immediately issues a stay to stop the ruling from going into effect until appeals are filed. Supporters of the voter-approved referendum in particular were concerned that if they lost, same-sex marriages could be performed before the judge rules on the stay request, which could take several weeks.
The next step will be for the losing side to file a "merits" appeal with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking it to essentially decide whether the judge's ruling was proper. Both those for and those against Prop 8 will probably ask this court to fast-track the case, that it be heard on an expedited basis.
Lawyers will argue on the larger legal questions in front of the three judges on the court, and then a written ruling will be issued. The losing side at this stage can ask an "en banc" panel of 11 judges from the court to hear the case.
The appeals court has no deadline in which to decide the constitutional questions, so the waiting game could drag on for many months.
Q: What will be argued?
A: This is a federal appeal over the impact created by a state referendum.
At issue is whether it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection" and "due process." Such individual protections have often been used in cases of civil rights, such as school desegregation and voting.
Those against Prop 8 will say that marriage is a fundamental state-sanctioned right and that same-sex couples are being discriminated against when laws deny them that right. Prop 8 proponents have said that state legislatures and voters have the right to amend a state constitution on defining marriage and that their wishes must be respected by the federal courts.
Q: How does it get to the Supreme Court?
A: After the 9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene, likely the next step instead of the larger "en banc" panel.
The nine justices on the Supreme Court, unlike lower courts, have the discretion to deny hearing the case. In fact, only about 1 percent of petitions for certiorari - which this appeal is labeled - are accepted by the court for argument.
If the case is accepted, as would be expected, both sides will file a series of written briefs, oral arguments would be held, and then a written ruling is issued. The high court usually releases its rulings by June of the annual term that begins in October, within a few months at most of hearing a case.
Q: How long will it take to get there, given that this is a landmark case?
A: Depending on how long it takes the appeals court to decide how quickly to hear the case and then to decide the constitutional questions, it could be a year or two before the case reaches the Supreme Court.
Q: How might some justices look at the case?
A: A key question for the court will be how it views - or how it believes the law views - homosexuality.
The issue could come down to whether homosexuality is considered a "status" or "conduct."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an unrelated high court ruling in June, offered a clue to how she might decide the question. When talking about laws affecting homosexual rights, Ginsburg said, "Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."
What Ginsburg suggests is that homosexuality is a status, something courts have generally given greater legal protection, as an "identifiable class." But placing homosexuality in the "conduct" category would suggest that being gay is, at least in part, a choice and perhaps provide less constitutional protection.
It is a fundamental, landmark question: Do civil rights laws and the broad constitutional protection apply in the same-sex marriage context?
Assuming the high court membership remains the same over the next few years, the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy will be key. A moderate conservative, he is the "swing" vote on this court, whose views on hot-button cases often are in harmony with more liberal colleagues.
Predicting how the court will ultimately rule is often futile, especially since the court is about to get its fourth new member in the last five years.
From the opposition:
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 4, 2010CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866)-372-6397
FRC Criticizes Court Ruling, Warns against the Roe v. Wade of Same-Sex 'Marriage'
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) criticized today's decision by federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker which declared that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to same-sex "marriage."
Earlier this year, FRC filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") legal brief in a lawsuit brought by advocates of so-called "same-sex marriage" against California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 2008 which says (in full), "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." FRC will now join the fight to reverse the decision on appeal.
FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:
"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.
"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.
"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.
"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."
Click here to download Family Research Council's amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/perry-v-schwarzenegger
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++New York Times
U.S. Court Overturns Calif. Same-Sex Marriage Ban
By JESSE McKINLEY and JOHN SCHWARTZ
Jeff Chiu/Associated Press
Opponents of Proposition 8 stood alongside proponents outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
Related
Read the Decision (pdf)
Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote -- and proponents were already promising to appeal, confidently predicting that higher courts would be less accommodating to the other side than Judge Walker.
Still, the very existence of federal-level ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers from crowds assembled in front of the courthouse in San Francisco Wednesday afternoon. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned in dozens of cities across California and several across the nation.
In San Francisco, the plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency. The lawyers brought the case — Perry v. Schwarzenegger — in May 2009 on behalf of two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.
For gay rights advocates, same-sex marriage has increasingly become a central issue in their battle for equality, seen as both an emotional indicator of legitimacy and as a practical way to lessen discrimination.
“Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of a same sex, so denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, who filed two briefs in favor of the plaintiffs. “And we believe that equality in marriage would help reduce discrimination in other settings because the government invites disrespect of us when it denies us equality.”
The trial, which began in January, was closely watched in the gay community, drawing large crowds to courtrooms, and inspiring re-creations by actors which were posted online. The plaintiffs offered two weeks of evidence from experts on marriage, sociology and political science, and emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case.
Proponents for Proposition 8, which was heavily backed by the Mormon church and other religious and conservative groups, had offered a much more straightforward defense of the measure, saying that same-sex marriage damages traditional marriage as an institution. They also argued that marriage was essentially created to foster procreation, which same-sex unions could not, and was thus fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.
On Tuesday, those supporting Proposition 8 telegraphed their view that they had likely lost this round as the defense’s leading lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, filed a notice with the court requesting that Judge Walker keep the ban on same-sex marriage in place while they appealed his decision.
The defendants requested a ruling at the same time as Judge Walker issues the opinion, setting the stage for a quick appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "and, if necessary, the Supreme Court."
On Wednesday, lawyers for Ms. Perry responded with a letter of their own, requesting that Judge Walker not automatically rule on such questions without a hearing, asking that they be allowed to respond to the "obviously premature" motion before any action is taken.
The decision could also play into the state’s gubernatorial race in California though the race has been centered largely on economic issues thus far, with unemployment running more than 12 percent and a $19 billion budget gap.
Democrat Jerry Brown has been vocal in his support of gay marriage in his current role as California attorney general. Republican Meg Whitman has taken the position that marriage should be between a man and a woman – in line with the language of Proposition 8 – though she says that she strongly supports the state’s civil union laws, which afford many of the same rights as marriage.
There were also signs that Judge Walker’s personal life – several published reports have said he is gay -- might become an issue for those opposed to his ruling. Hours before the decision was announced, a commentator on Fox News.com – Gerard Bradley, a professor of law at University of Notre Dame – posted an editorial questioning the judge’s impartiality.
“I do not doubt that Judge Walker made up his mind about Prop 8 before the trail began,” Mr. Bradley wrote.
Some in the gay rights community were initially upset by the case fearing that a loss at a federal level could set back their more measured efforts to gain wider recognition for same-sex marriage, which is legal in five states and the District of Columbia.
But those concerns seemed to fade as the trial began, and on Wednesday, the mood was of elation and cautious optimism that Mr. Boies and Mr. Olson’s initial victory might change the debate.
Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that she believed that there were members of Supreme Court who “have a very deep seated bias against LGBT people,” meaning lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender. But, she called Wednesday’s ruling “potentially game changing.”
“This legal victory profoundly changes the conversation,” she said, “for folks in the legal world and the policy world who were previously unmoved by this struggle.”
No comments:
Post a Comment